Son left education- losing large percentage tax credits

pipkin71

Dunroamin wrote: »

But you don't really want to offer places in art/dance/drama to everyone who's interested because only the most talented and most motivated have the slightest chance of going into this area; it has to be quite selective.

I guess so - perhaps some of those who went were not at the standard of a level 3 course, but I imagine some of them would have been. What happens to them, now?

They all had to take part in an art activity and take along a portfolio of their work so I think all of my daughter's manga art lessons paid off. She just needs to decide now whether she will take the course or carry on with home ed

I was really proud of her though for securing a place.

Dunroamin

pipkin71 wrote: »

I guess so - perhaps some of those who went were not at the standard of a level 3 course, but I imagine some of them would have been. What happens to them, now?

Most colleges will offer level 2 courses in the same area which can be taken first although many will be better off making a different choice.

Congratulations to your daughter - it's going to mean a big change for her.

pipkin71

Dunroamin wrote: »

Most colleges will offer level 2 courses in the same area which can be taken first although many will be better off making a different choice.

Congratulations to your daughter - it's going to mean a big change for her.

A big change for me too although no rest as youngest will keep me busy for another two years :eek::eek:

Thank you, though. Hopefully, if she does accept, things will run smoothly

dktreesea

Dunroamin wrote: »

Degree level study shouldn't be about "training" and those who want to claim public money in the form of JSA need to be available for work and, after a period of time, any work.

For some degrees the "entry" level for getting a relevant job is a PhD or the equivalent. If we are prepared to fund bachelor degrees for archaeology, geology, some engineering courses, some science courses, medicine, then we should equally be prepared to provide those same people with funding all the way through and a job at the end of it.

At least, with medicine, the NHS provides three years of paid work for every doctor on successful completion of their PhD equivalent degree, not to mention on the job training, something that doesn't happen in a lot of other disciplines.

dktreesea

Confuseddot wrote: »

My newphew, about 6.2 13 stone althetic build, was told by the carears service at school that he should follow his dreams and they would come true. He wanted to be a jockey ... many arguments later he eventually was made to see that we weren't trying to ruin his life it just wasn't possible for him to be a jockey.
Yes children need to be encouraged but being sensible and teaching about saving for things and no you are not entitled to anything. Work hard and you may get what you want but don't expect it handed to you on a plate.

One of my relatives wanted to join the police and in those days you had to be quite tall. He's had a reasonable career in another field, but every now and then talks wistfully of the police and that he wished the opportunities available now (the height restrictions have long since been eased) were available to him then.

Alas, 6'2" is probably too tall to be a jockey. Annelise King is a successful jockey in Australia. She's 5' 10" or thereabouts. Her parents told her she was too tall, but she didn't listen to them and has been riding professionally for quite a while.

That's a sad twist of fate, when genetics interfere with achieving one's dreams. On the other hand, when he is at a rock concert, or the football, he will have no problems seeing what is going on. He'll be able to reach into cupboards without needing a step ladder. :-)

seven-day-weekend

Errata wrote: »

It certainly looks more sensible than a place on a college dance course leading to .............. probably shop work.

Or nothing, because the shop workers got there three years earlier and have experience.

SandraScarlett

bestpud wrote: »

Constant praise and being told they are wonderful has done them no good whatsoever.

Soo, lazy kids who think the world owes them a living (an interesting and well paid one at that) and insipid parents who tiptoe around them for fear of making them mentally ill = a recipe for disaster!

You all need a kick up the back side and I'm glad this government have decided to do just that!

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Absolutely. We went to a presentation evening at our girls' school, where the headmistress raved on and on about how 'you are all fantastic, girls; you can be anything you want to be; spread your wings and fly.....'. Fact is, they're not all fantastic.

poet123 wrote: »

I couldn't agree more, with both your post and the one from BP. We used to send students out on work placement. I lost count of the number who were told not to come back because they wouldn't take instructions. They wouldn't make tea, or do anything they thought was beneath them. We had one lad who refused to clean a computer (with a wet wipe!!) because he didn't do cleaning at home, and it wasn't something he fancied doing!!

There is a fine line between instilling confidence and arrogance.

I am one of the saddo folk :T who has just had an entertaining hour or so, reading this thread. I have Real Life friends, family, but also an operation tomorrow, so this has taken my mind off worrying about things.

I can't understand the OP and why they were surprised that they would now lose benefits for the son who was now working, but aside from that, I whole heartedly agree with the above quotes.

One of my duties when teaching, was to obtain work experience for about 200 14/15 year olds. I'd built up a lot of contacts when I was in business, who were happy to offer WE but, in the 1980s, the number of youngsters who refused to do what they were asked to do, by their employers, was minimal.

Fast forward to the present day, and it's a different story, because so many youngsters think that the fact they've turned up for their WE, perhaps late, but they're there, is startling.

I know there are posters who think that the pensioners on here don't know what we're talking about, but if you don't agree with someone, you're accused of being a bully!

Just because we're astonished at the amount of benefits people receive for having children, especially compared to what we received, doesn't mean we're spiteful - just astonished!

When posters ask how will they manage, we try to give advice, on ways to budget, but that isn't the advice they are actually seeking, is it.

When posters ask how they can keep their inheritance, cos Uncle Arthur has died and left them £50,000, but carry on getting their benefits, to which they're entitled, they are amazed when they're told they can't. And if someone has the temerity to post "why should taxpayers continue to fund your benefits, if you have so much money", then the OP will say "I came on here hoping for some help, instead you're all being nasty".

Dunroamin' nearly always posts what I'm thinking.

xx

dktreesea

SandraScarlett wrote: »

......Just because we're astonished at the amount of benefits people receive for having children, especially compared to what we received, doesn't mean we're spiteful - just astonished!

When posters ask how will they manage, we try to give advice, on ways to budget, but that isn't the advice they are actually seeking, is it.

........ And if someone has the temerity to post "why should taxpayers continue to fund your benefits, if you have so much money", then the OP will say "I came on here hoping for some help, instead you're all being nasty".

Dunroamin' nearly always posts what I'm thinking.

xx

Yes, I find the amount of child subsidies paid astonishing as well.

This problem arises, imho, because of the parent associating a reduction in child related benefits with a drop in the their - as opposed to the child's - income. If the income was used strictly how it was intended, i.e. solely for the child's benefit, instead of parents using their own benefit for things like alcohol and cigarettes, then having to dip into the more generous child benefits for their own as well as the children's living costs, parents wouldn't notice the lack of the child's income, (always presuming the child was of an age to get jsa, so able to fund their own living costs) because they wouldn't be counting on it to live on themselves.

Contrary to what some people posting on this forum seem to think, it isn't so easy for low income parents to improve their lot. If they are unemployed, there may be any number of factors excluding them from the paid workforce. Lack of qualifications, lack of recent work experience, their postcode, their physical characteristics, their age, would be employers' perceptions of the cultural group they are part of. There are employers who routinely don't employ young people from certain areas in our city because the likelihood is, according to one local shopkeeper looking for staff in our area "they would belong to a gang and rob me blind".

Some parents, faced with a young adult who still lives at home, could be looking at a fall in household income of well over £100 a week (e.g. in Scotland, £30 a week for EMA, up to £92 a week for CTC and CB, plus loss of housing benefit due to the child now being independent £11.45 a week).

So now the 19 year old, say, is out of work and getting £56.25 jsa every week. If it were me I would be telling my 19 year old "you managed on £30 a week up to now. I want the difference to pay the rent shortfall and cover some of your food/share of the electricity. Oh and by the way, I can no longer afford to pay your mobile phone bill/monthly transport card/pocket money/contribution to your savings fund/clothing allowance or whatever else the benefits received previously funded."

seven-day-weekend

SandraScarlett wrote: »

.

Dunroamin' nearly always posts what I'm thinking.

xx

Me too! .

ukclare

dktreesea wrote: »

For low income families with a child going into advanced higher education, where the child follows a traditional path and moves to another city to study, losing the various benefits elements isn't such a problem. The child in question has vacated their room and gone away to study. They can get a grant, due to having low income parents, plus, if necessary, a student loan. Little or no burden to support the said student falls upon the parents, and they are free to let the now vacated bedroom if they want to replace some or all of the lost benefits income.

:mad:YES IT IS A PROBLEM! I have two children away at Uni - they have this annoying habit of coming home, usually around Christmas (3 weeks), Easter (3 Weeks) and for many weeks during the summer holidays (8 weeks plus)- the Uni year is only about 44 weeks maximum but more like 38 and the rooms they rent are only for about 44 weeks a year. I have to provide two beds/rooms for them - shall I put the tenants in the shed?
As you rightly said there are no benefits payable but the rooms still have to be there.